Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (1 Viewer)

[TJPC]

I guess, because it was so stupid I. actually forgot the raccoon! This, to me was another example of poor execution. We had a very obvious stuffed animal, not a la “Guardians of the Galaxy”.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I guess, because it was so stupid I. actually forgot the raccoon! This, to me was another example of poor execution. We had a very obvious stuffed animal, not a la “Guardians of the Galaxy”.

 

[DaveF]

What if Supercop 2, The Infinite Improbability Drive, and The Farnsworth Parabox had a love child? It would grow up to be this movie’s choice not made. Everything everywhere all at once is bonkers and nails the ending. Recommended.

 

[DaveF]

Hi can someone point me to the thread where they’re talking about Everything Everywhere All At Once? I can’t seem to find it. Thx.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The Daniels are the guests on the most recent episode of The Movies That Made Me podcast in the event anybody wants to give that a listen.

 

[DaveF]

Everything Everywhere All At Once is part scifi multi-verse, part low-budget ‘80s king-fu, and part family drama.

If multi-verse and king-fu aren’t your jam, this movie probably isn’t for you.

But if for example, you ever wished for a feature length version of the lunatic Futurama’s The Farnsworth Parabox episode, this is it. Every “dumb” thing the disappointed viewer disliked is a moment of surprise and delight for a multi-verse enthusiast like me, who wants to see this idea played with and taken to the limits.


If you wish there were more old-school, campy kung-fu movies like Sammo Hung used to make, this is it.

If you miss the mid-budget scifi movies of the late ‘90s early ’00s before Marvel took over the world, this is it.

If you fundamentally want a movie that makes you *feel” through earned emotions and unexpected experiences, this is it.

This movie is intentionally bonkers and silly and campy. It’s riffing off of Douglas Adams’s Infinite Improbability Drive, that powers The Heart of Gold in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where the least likely event is the most powerful driver of the engine.


At the core though is a touching family drama. It’s curious how Everything Everywhere All At Once and Turning Red came out the same year. Kinda the same core idea, but wildly different executions and perspectives.

Everything Everywhere All At Once isn’t the greatest movie or my super favoritest. But when it was done, I was completely all-in, big smile, and eyes damp. This isn’t for everyone, but if it’s for you, you’ll have a good time.

 

[JoeStemme]

Hi can someone point me to the thread where they’re talking about Everything Everywhere All At Once? I can’t seem to find it. Thx.

I tried yesterday:

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

The assertion here is that those who do not like "Everything..." and criticized it, are as stupid and deluded I honestly don't feel that film appreciation or lack thereof has anything to do with intelligence. And I certainly don't feel if you don't like something you are deluded. I think...

www.hometheaterforum.com

-- but, folks jumped right back into talking about cartoons and how "stupid" they are..............

 

[Patrick Sun]

Having seen a few thousand movies in the past 3-4 decades, I've seen bits of everything, and by now, I come to appreciate filmmaking ambition, and this film has it in spades. The film is a kitchen sink of cinematic exploration of the string of choices that details a life's journey(s).

I enjoyed the ludicrous-ness of the various worlds on display, and for its comedic chops, as long as I'm laughing along with the scenes, I'm good for the ride. True, it's not for everybody, and no one thing can be all things to all people, but more rather a thing to some of the people some of the time, and that's okay.

I also got some Ratatouille vibe with the racoon chef character.

And I enjoyed watching the actors having a ball with the the material, cinematic joy is hard to find, so embrace it when the universe(s) manifests it into existence.

 

[DaveF]

I also got some Ratatouille vibe with the racoon chef character.

As you should.

They were explicitly riffing on Ratatouille. It’s the pay off from Evelyn trying and failing to explain the multi-verse to her husband and daughter and getting “Ratatouille” wrong and calling it “Raccacoony” and then they ask about Racoons controlling people and then she finds that universe.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

As you should.

They were explicitly riffing on Ratatouille. It’s the pay off from Evelyn trying and failing to explain the multi-verse to her husband and daughter and getting “Ratatouille” wrong and calling it “Raccacoony” and then they ask about Racoons controlling people and then she finds that universe.

Evelyn also thought a raccoon was the star of "Ratatouille", not a rat.

Surprised anyone missed that and didn't get that "Raccacoony" was explicitly intended to link to "Ratatouille" - it's not a subtle joke!

 

[DaveF]

It had a secondary payoff (if I remember the sequence right) in that the chef was better than her in that universe, and mocks her for her mistakes, but then we learn that it’s because he has Raccoon controlling his cooking!

And of course the final payoff with the finale sequence.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Haven't seen anyone in this thread discuss a possible interpretation of the story:

Spoiler

it's all in Evelyn's head and none of the multiverse events actually happen.

When I see the film a 2nd time, I'll pay closer attention to the potential nods in that direction, and maybe there are bits in the movie that rule out this possibility.

Based on my impression of the movie one time through, though, I think it's entirely possible.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I suppose all movies or most could be taken that way, but I didn’t see any evidence or context clues to suggest that would be the case. Given the absurdist nature of the filmmakers’ prior work, I think their intention is for us to take everything at face value.

 

[DaveF]

Haven't seen anyone in this thread discuss a possible interpretation of the story:

Spoiler

it's all in Evelyn's head and none of the multiverse events actually happen.

When I see the film a 2nd time, I'll pay closer attention to the potential nods in that direction, and maybe there are bits in the movie that rule out this possibility.

Based on my impression of the movie one time through, though, I think it's entirely possible.

I had that in mind and posed the question against the movie while watching it. I think it's clearly real and not a delusion. Both Joy and Waymond state that they don't know how how they came to be where they are and have gaps in time at least once, each. At first viewing, I thought the movie was clear that this is not just in Evelyn's head but was a truly fantastic multi-verse experience.

That said, if someone prefers that interpretation, the movie is so trippy and bonkers, if that enables them to enjoy it further, godspeed!

 

[JoeStemme]

I read an interview with Daniels just this afternoon. Their "interpretation" is that there is none. Just roll with it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I suppose all movies or most could be taken that way, but I didn’t see any evidence or context clues to suggest that would be the case. Given the absurdist nature of the filmmakers’ prior work, I think their intention is for us to take everything at face value.

I had that in mind and posed the question against the movie while watching it. I think it's clearly real and not a delusion. Both Joy and Waymond state that they don't know how how they came to be where they are and have gaps in time at least once, each. At first viewing, I thought the movie was clear that this is not just in Evelyn's head but was a truly fantastic multi-verse experience.

That said, if someone prefers that interpretation, the movie is so trippy and bonkers, if that enables them to enjoy it further, godspeed!

I'm certainly not claiming/endorsing the theory I mentioned, but it seemed possible as I watched.

Two reasons I felt that way:

Spoiler

1. Evelyn only accesses the multiverse at her lowest point. Everything's going wrong in her life - it's a coincidence that she suddenly gains understanding of all these different possibilities right then?

2. "Raccacoony"! In "our world", Evelyn goofily believes "Ratatouille" is called "Raccacoony" and the main character is a raccoon, not a rat. There's supposed to be another world where the events of "Raccacoony" actually happened?

Now maybe the movie posits that there are infinite universes so basically all possibilities are real.

Still seems strange to me that something as silly as Evelyn's misinterpretation of "Ratatouille" would actually exist.

Anyway, I might be wholly wrong. Just saw some potential indicators, that's all!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I read an interview with Daniels just this afternoon. Their "interpretation" is that there is none. Just roll with it.

That kinda seems like a copout. They're saying it really happened or it didn't - you figure it out?

 

[JoeStemme]

That kinda seems like a copout. They're saying it really happened or it didn't - you figure it out?

They are saying it's "real" for the purpose of a movie- just go along with it. They go on to say that they hate over interpreting of movies and that this is sort of a reaction to that impulse.
But, yes, in a way that is a cop out. It just shows how empty an exercise it is IMHO. There is no there, there. It's all flash with little substance

 

[jayembee]

That kinda seems like a copout. They're saying it really happened or it didn't - you figure it out?

They are saying it's "real" for the purpose of a movie- just go along with it. They go on to say that they hate over interpreting of movies and that this is sort of a reaction to that impulse.
But, yes, in a way that is a cop out. It just shows how empty an exercise it is IMHO. There is no there, there. It's all flash with little substance

Or you're overthinking their response. I don't think it's a cop-out for an artist to suggest that what they think their work is about isn't the point, but it's what the viewer thinks it's about that is important. Maybe they consider their film to be something of a Rorschach blot.

I like to use a quote from the late SF writer John M. Ford: "All stories are three stories. There's the one the writer writes, there's the one the reader reads, and there's the one where the first two meet by moonlight."

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Or you're overthinking their response. I don't think it's a cop-out for an artist to suggest that what they think their work is about isn't the point, but it's what the viewer thinks it's about that is important. Maybe they consider their film to be something of a Rorschach blot.

Maybe. I felt it was a copout to imply that they had no intentions in the first place - if that's what they said.

It seems fine for a filmmaker to say "I thought it would be read Way A but other ways are valid too" vs. "you bought it, you make it up".

Maybe @JoeStemme can post a link to the interview so we can see what they said specifically.